Pau Gargallo wrote:
> On 7/8/06, Robert Kern <robert.kern at gmail.com> wrote:
>> Ed Schofield wrote:
>>> * Should numpy.rand and numpy.randn accept sequences of dimensions as
>>> arguments, like rand((3,3)), as an alternative to rand(3,3)?
>>> * Should rand((3,3)) and randn((3,3)) continue to raise a TypeError?
>> This is a false dichotomy. There are more choices here.
>>>> * Remove rand and randn (at least from the toplevel namespace) and promote the
>> use of random_sample and standard_normal which already follow the tuple convention.
>> i just wanted to point out another possible choice:
>> * enable numpy.rand((3,3)) and make numpy.rand(3,3) raise an error
> as zeros and ones do.
>> I suppose that you all discussed a lot about this choice also, but it
> still seems very reasonable to me :-(
Extensively! The problem I have with it is that there are already functions
which do exactly that. Why have two functions that do exactly the same thing
with exactly the same interface but different names? I say, pick one and get rid
of the other if you must remove rand(3,3).
--
Robert Kern
"I have come to believe that the whole world is an enigma, a harmless enigma
that is made terrible by our own mad attempt to interpret it as though it had
an underlying truth."
-- Umberto Eco